Other People's Money

Leaders come in all shapes and sizes. 

Some stand at 6'2" like Gregory Peck and some stand 4'10" like Danny DeVito.

Seeing these two men square off at a shareholders meeting in Other People's Money was quite the sight. 

Peck's character, Jorgy, was the tall chairman of New England Wire and Cable who gave a riveting speech about how the company do
esn't need to be taken over by stockholders from New York. Their company was debt free and it was being run by people who actually cared about its employees.

Then DeVito's character, Larry the Liquidator, a small corporate raider picks up the microphone to convince all the stockholders how his money is going to be the best for the company. How with his help, more money will come through the company to benefit everyone.

These two men could not be more different in their leadership styles. Jorgy is the stereotypical helpful leader who will do whatever he can for his people while Larry is the stereotypical greedy inhumane leader.

As a New England native, I was rooting for New England Wire and Cable, but unfortunately, greed got the best of Bill Coles, the president of the company who bought up 1 million shares of the company to then vote for Larry. 

In today's world, it's so difficult to be a altruistic leader like Jorgy. He has the right intentions and doesn't want his company to be taken over by hungry sharks who won't know what's best for the people who work there.

But people don't really care about that kind of thing anymore. All they care about is who can make them the most money the quickest. 

I would rather have a leader who cares about me than a leader who cares about just the money because that means that I'm replaceable in their eyes. Going to work for a person who knows your name and cares about your well being is better than going to work for someone who can snap their fingers and have your job.

Their heights even have symbolic meanings. Jorgy is supposed to be the hero and Larry the villain. Obviously, you'd want the tall, handsome hero to win, but in the real world, that's not the case.

Sometimes the Larry the Liquidators of the world win, whether we like it or not. 

Working Girl

How would you react if your boss stole your idea and pawned it off as their own?

I know how I'd feel.

I'd be pissed.

In Working Girl, Tess McGill (Melanie Griffith) handled it pretty well. Me, I would have trashed the office and confronted my boss, but she used her boss, Katharine Parker (Sigourney Weaver) absence in the workplace to her advantage.

It was tough to watch a movie where there was a lack of female support in the office, especially by other female co-workers. 

Women know how difficult it is to succeed in a man's world so you would think that we would help each other and not try and tear each other down. 

When Tess found out that Katharine stole her idea, she felt betrayed. She looked up to Katharine and was constantly told that their relationship was a "two-way street" and how they could trust each other. When trust like this is broken, it's something you can't get back. 

Katharine thought she could take advantage of a young secretary and present Tess's idea as her own. And, when Tess first told her about the idea, Katharine sort of rejected it, saying that it wasn't something that the owner would go for. 

That's another thing that is wrong with Katharine's type of leadership. She hears good ideas and convinces the original thinker that they aren't good, even though they are.

When a leader hears a good idea, they should tell them how good it is. It helps boost confidence and builds a positive rapport between them. Plus, it's always nice as an employee to be recognized. 

For some men, I can understand how it might be difficult to work with a woman boss. They must not be mature or their brain not developed enough to know that IT DOES NOT MATTER.

The only reason they have a problem with it was because it used to pretty much be the norm to have a boss who was a man.

God forbid she wear a skirt or dress. 

The only difference between men and women is a chromosome. XX or XY. Why does it matter to someone if their boss is producing estrogen over testosterone? Ideas are ideas, no matter where they come from. Why is it that an idea by a woman just doesn't hold as much weight as a man's?

That's why I believe that Katharine stole Tess's idea. She's in a workplace thats a dog-eat-dog world, and the only way she knows how to work is to steal ideas. She's probably so influenced by the men around her that she lost her individuality.

Me, I don't care if I have a male or female boss. As long as they support and help me, I'm all good.

But I guess the same can't be said for men in the workplace.

Maybe shoulders are distracting.

Glengarry Glen Ross

"Why?"

"Because I don't like you."

Imagine your boss saying this to you.

They are willing to screw you over, granted you did something illegal, just because they simply don't like you. Not because turning you in is the right thing to do. Just because they don't like you.

What kind of leader does that? 

As a leader, you don't need to like everyone and you don't need everyone to like you. 

But what you do need to do is set a good example for the rest of your team.

The team of men in Glengarry Glen Ross isn't even a team. If you took the most random people you could find on the street and threw them in a room and told them to SELL, that's what this group of men would be. 

Our first introduction to a "leader," if he can even be called one, is Alec Baldwin's character, Blake. Imagine the worse boss you've ever had. Now imagine them screaming the F-bomb at you every other word. Blake was no leader. He wasn't even trying to instill fear into the employees. He was trying to make them feel inferior. 

Leaders should support their employees but that is exactly the opposite of what Blake was doing. 

I don't disagree with the incentive of a car to sell more, but what I do disagree with is that second place is a set of knives. Sure it'll make them want to sell more to get the car, but if one employee sees they aren't going to win, they have no reason to keep selling. 

Next, there's the duo of George Aaronow (Alan Arkin) and Dave Moss (Ed Harris). In this dynamic, it is clear that Moss is the leader. Aaronow doesn't have any original thoughts and all he does is agree with what Moss is saying, which leads Moss to believe he would be easy to manipulate. 

No leader should use their power to try and manipulate those underneath them. Ethically it's the wrong thing to do and in this case, legally it could lead to major consequences. It isn't until the end of the movie where we see that Aaronow finally got his wits about him and denied Moss's proposition to steal the leads from John Williamson's (Kevin Spacey) office. 

But, Moss got to Shelley Levene (Jack Lemmon). 

If Williamson had just helped Shelley when he asked for it, without trying to extort him for money, the whole situation could have been avoided. Williamson is a inexperienced and sleazy boss who would rather see his employees fail. 

A supportive boss would have given him a lead to help him get back on his feet. Shelley had already proven himself in the past of being one of the best salesmen in the company. 

He was desperate. No boss should have to extort his employees to get them to do well in their job. His youth and inexperience as a leader made him malleable, and that's exactly what Blake did. Williamson saw a leader act the way Blake did and believed that was how all leaders were meant to ask.

The only man who could even be considered a leader was Richard Roma (Al Pachino). He made connections with people and he made them feel heard. 

When Shelley finally made a sale, Roma listened to him. Roma wanted to listen to him because he knew how important that sale was to him.

No one else cared or wanted to listen but Roma did. 

All these men are sleazy and cunning, only trying to get money from people. This movie really didn't show any positive leadership, so warning to those who dare take on this movie. The only thing you'll remember is the 151 f-bombs dropped and a young Alec Baldwin. 

Gone With The Wind

"Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them." 

Leadership isn't necessarily something that everyone wants. 

In some movies, the whole plot is someone trying to take power, take leadership from someone else. But in Gone With The Wind, it's almost the opposite. 

Southern belle Scarlet O'Hara is, in no uncertain terms, the belle of the ball. All the boys love her and all the girls want to be her. 

Of course though, it wouldn't be much of a movie if Scarlet got her happy ever after at the beginning of the film. The man she loves, Ashley Wilkes, cares for Scarlet, but not in the way she hoped. Instead, he marries Mellie, a beautifully kind woman who has nothing but adoration towards Scarlet. 

When Ashley goes off to war, he asks Scarlet to take care of Mellie. This is sort of the beginning of when we see Scarlet take a leadership role in the film. Even though she doesn't do it for the right reasons, she befriends Mellie, with the underlying reason of pleasing Ashley. 

Everything Scarlet does is to please others and make them like her. She knows the women are biased against her, for stealing the attention of all the men, but those aren't the opinions that Scarlet cares for, because those aren't the people who she needs to be impressing. 

The first quarter of the movie, Scarlet is living in this idealistic world where her biggest problem is Ashley not loving her. But then the men go off to war and she becomes a protector towards Mellie. 

In metaphorical terms as well as literal terms, as the war gets closer to Georgia, Scarlet's leadership responsibilities grow. She becomes a nurse towards wounded soldiers, aiding De. Meade as he tries to attend to as many men as he can. 

In today's day and age, we might not necessarily think of this as traditional leadership. Looking at it through the context of the Civil War as well as knowing that becoming a nurse was probably not something Scarlet wanted to do with her life, I think it's safe to say that this character change within Scarlet is her becoming a leader. 

As the Yankees converge on Georgia, Mellie's pregnancy causes issues surrounding their departure to Scarlet's family's plantation. They cannot move her but they also can't stay where they are. When Scarlet goes to find Dr. Meade to help with the delivery, he refuses her.

This is where we see another shift in Scarlet's personality. Her and her maid, Prissy, deliver Mellie's baby. Once the baby is delivered, Prissy calls upon Rhett Butler, Scarlet's suitor in the film. He drives a carriage to the house and loads up Mellie and her newborn along with Prissy and Scarlet. 

Together, they all escape and begin the trek to Scarlet's plantation. As a viewer, it almost felt like in the presence of Butler, Scarlet can ease some of the weight of her leadership off her shoulders and onto his. But, at a fork in the road, figuratively and literally, Butler decides he is going off to war. Scarlet begs him but he leaves the women, shifting all that pressure back onto Scarlet. 

So, with a newborn baby, a mother in desperate need of medical attention and a maid who is scared out of her mind, Scarlet leads the women to her plantation. They go for miles and miles, going as far as hiding under a bridge in a thunderstorm as Yankee troops walk over them. 

When they finally arrive at the plantation, the horse keels over and dies from the amount of exertion they've put on him. Scarlet knew no one else was going to be able to save them so she did it herself. 

Fortunately, Scarlet arrives him to find her father there along with Mammy and Pork, two loyal servants to the O'Hara family. Her father appears to be delirious, his health having gone downhill since the death of his wife. 

And here is where we see the final shift in leadership in Scarlet in the first part of the movie. No one can look to her father anymore for guidance because he is going out of his mind. 

One of the last scenes before her famous "As God is my witness, I will never be hungry again!" quote, everyone is asking Scarlet what they should do. Everyone is desperate and they need someone to help lead them to salvation, and they all look towards Scarlet. 

She never chose the path that she took, it was thrust upon her whether she liked it or not. Scarlet could have given up at any point, or shoved off the leadership to someone else, but she didn't. 

Her will is much stronger than anyone thinks, and it is clearly shown through her character development through the first part of the movie. 

The Devil Wears Prada

Taylor Swift is currently on her Eras tour, starting in March of 2023 and concluding December of 2024. She has sold out stadiums across the world and oddly enough has helped the economy. 

Millions of people flock to see her perform, making bracelets, TikToks and wearing outfits matching her albums. She has diehard fans who listen to her albums the second they are released and she has fans who are casual listeners.

Despite all her success and all of the people who support and love her, there are more that hate her. 

What is it about a successful woman that people hate? All she's doing is being successful on her own terms and doing what she loves. Why is it so hard to just let people enjoy her music?

This world has a lack of successful women, in my opinion, and one of the strongest females I can think of is fictional.

Miranda Priestly from The Devil Wears Prada.

Brilliantly played by Meryl Streep, Miranda runs a magazine called Runway, a highly successful and influential fashion publication. 

Enter Andy Sachs, played by Anne Hathaway, who is so uninterested and naive to the fashion world that it peaks Mirandas interest to the point where Andy is hired as one of her assistants. 

Andy is so ignorant that he sees Miranda as a complete dictator, everyone vying for her approval and opinion and truly doesn't understand why her employees are basically killing themselves over a woman who doesn't care about them. 

The turning point for Andy in this movie is a conversation between her and Nigel, a longtime employee of Miranda's who might not approve of her methods but surely understands them. 

Nigel explains to her that Runway wouldn't be successful without her and that everything she does is for a reason. She doesn't coddle her employees because things wouldn't get done in time. 

I don't believe Miranda is a dictator, at all. She is a strong and successful woman who is the reason that these people are becoming better at their jobs. If the roles were different, and this was a sports magazine and in Miranda's place was a man, his actions would not be seen as dictator-ish. He would be the hero who saves the magazine and who everyone loves because he is so dedicated to his work.

Why is it that a woman who is dedicated to her work is overbearing, aggressive and hard to work with and a man who is dedicated is resilient, powerful and assertive?

A man who prioritizes work over a personal life is someone who is working hard to provide for his family and a woman is neglectful. Is this because people still have an unconscious bias that woman should be the caretakers of the home and the kids?

If Miranda was a man, all her actions would pretty much be justified in the eyes of the audience, but alas, she is not so everyone views her as the villain of this story when in reality, a very strong argument could be made that Andy's boyfriend is the main antagonist. 

In meetings, if Miranda doesn't like an idea or she shoots down a suggestion, I view that as being productive and effective. She doesn't waste time with trying to not hurt her employees feelings. 

Emily, Nigel, Andy and everyone else who works under Miranda are exactly that: her employees. Miranda has worked to get where she is, and she is physically and mentally on another level than these people. She doesn't treat them as an equal because they are not equals. 

Not that she doesn't have to be nice to them, but she doesn't need to worry about them liking her because that's not her job. Her job isn't to be liked but to get things done and that's what she does. 

The people that Miranda surrounds herself with aren't people that she thinks will fail. She isn't going to keep people around who are useless to her. Despite her actions, Miranda respects the people around her. Maybe not in the way people would normally show, considering she just flings her purse and coat on Andy or Emily's desk when she walks in, but she trusts them to do the work.

She wouldn't let just anyone into her home or to pick up her Hermes scarfs. Her employees prove themselves to her to gain her trust and respect, even if it isn't shown in the traditional way. 

Miranda is a wonderful leader. She's effective and efficient and that's what a boss should be. For me, it all boils down to one thing: if she were a man, this whole blog post would be different. No one would ever feel like they should defend his actions because they are justified. 

No one should have to justify Miranda's actions. Not because they're unjustifiable, but because she is doing her job. If the job gets done, as Machiavelli would claim, the ends justify the means.

Citizen Kane

In the movie Citizen Kane, starring Orson Welles as Charles Foster Kane, we watch Kane throughout his life starting as a young boy who is taken from his home by the wealthy Walter Parks Thatcher to his death decades later in a cold and empty house, where he utters his final word, "rosebud."

As Kane becomes a young man, with the help of Parks, we see the contrast between the two men, and it looks like Kane is going to be a standup guy and a successful leader. He wants to run a newspaper and actually be involved in its production, unlike the previous owner. 

Kane decides to live in the newsroom, and runs his newspaper alongside his friends Jedediah Leland and Mr. Bernstein. 

Together, the three men operate as leaders over the office where everyone adores them. 

I believe that if Kane had been satisfied with his newspaper and hadn't become greedy like Parks, he could have been an ideal leader in his position and his life would have gone very different. 

He had decided to run for governor, and that's where his blunders in leadership began. He believed that just because he could successfully run a newspaper that he could run over a whole population of people. 

And he almost did, too, had it not been for his affair with 'singer' Susan. He was exposed to the public and lost all chances of becoming governor. The lies and betrayal that he did in his personal life caught up to his political life.

As a political leader, you don't have a real 'personal' life anymore. All your moves are scrutinized and every step you take has to be calculated. Kane thought he could have his cake and eat it too, but as a leader, that is something that you just can't do. 

Kane tried to be a leader in every part of his life, but his leadership turned into overbearing dictatorship. He couldn't work for or with anyone else and thought he knew best. He all but forced his new wife, Susan, to become an opera singer to legitimize her singing career, but her attempted suicide is what it takes for him to lay off.

His need for greed and superiority over everyone else is pushing the people who love him away from him. Kane believes that he is still the great leader that he was when he began the newspaper, but his ego won't let him see that he is a completely new person now.

He's become Walter Thatcher Parks, the man who raised him and the man Kane wanted nothing to be like. 

Over time, Kane locked himself and Susan in his mansion, Xanadu. Susan wanted to do things, like go to parties and see friends, but Kane's authority over Susan prevented her from free will. We see Susan begin doing puzzles to pass the time.

Kane went wrong in a number of different ways, but at each crossroad he stood at, he went deeper and deeper down a road leading to isolation and desolation rather than the road that led to leadership and happiness. His inability to be satisfied with what he had led him to want to achieve more than he already did.

He wound up having a bigger house than he could handle, more artwork than he needed and more sculptures than could be appreciated. Everything in his house was idle when Susan left him, and he ended up being only a leader of expensive art and unfinished puzzles.

Why We Need Movies

When was the last time you went to the movies? A week? A month? A year?

Personally, I can say that the last time I went to the movies was maybe three months ago, and before that I went probably once every six months.

While at the theater, I would watch the previews and tell my companions, "Oh that would be a great movie to see in theaters, we have to go watch it."

And we never would. 

I would go about my life as if I hadn't even seen the movie preview, and then if it came out on a streaming service I would remember my interest in it and watch it. The movie might have been the best movie ever made, but watching it on a television or a computer screen would dull down the experience.

The cinema is a place for no distractions. In fact, it's considered rude to talk, whisper, be on your phone or chew loudly. I wish that was a rule I could implement in my household. There have been so many times the movie had to be paused so someone could go to the bathroom or so someone could make a comment or get more popcorn. 

Movie theater etiquette should just be movie etiquette. 

Once genre of movie that my dad, sister and I would always see in theaters, no matter what, were the Marvel movies. Captain America, Iron Man, Black Panther you name it. We were always there on opening weekend so it couldn't be spoiled for us. 

We would sit down, all giddy and excited, and lock in. And, when someone huge would happen, we would sit up in our seats and look at each other with crazed looks on our faces. After the movie and the end credit scenes were over, we would immediately start dissecting the movie.

What we liked about it, what we wished would have happened, what we expect in the next movies. Those conversations would take us from our seats in the theater, to the lobby, to the car, through the car ride home and then we would sit around our kitchen table, at an ungodly hour at night, and talk some more. 

I think a really big part of cinema is expectations. 

People need to get excited about seeing movies again. That's what Marvel did for us. We would watch trailers and read articles and text about it in our group chat of the three of us. The days leading up to the movie couldn't go fast enough.

Seeing those movies in theaters is an experience that just can't be replicated. We'd see the movie in theaters, and maybe a few years later we would see it on a cable TV channel and still, we'd sit down to watch. What we also do is reminisce. 

"Remember when we saw that in the theater and everyone gasped?"

"Remember when you cried at that part?"

"Remember watching that scene and wondering how they were going to get out of that mess?"

I remember it all.

The movies give you an experience that no one can take away from you. From the angles of the cameras to the lighting and colors to the sound that you can hear in your brain and not just your ears, cinema is meant to be experienced.

Some movies might be better in theaters than other movies but then there are the movies that are meant to be seen in theaters. So much so that if you don't see it in theaters, you're missing a whole part of the movie.

Another reason I love the cinema is that it gets people talking. Communicating. Maybe it's good things about the movie and maybe it's bad. I had my friends at school I would talk to about movies and that would be our whole conversation. We could talk about it for hours. 

In high school, my best friend suggested I watch one of his favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption. I kept putting it off, looking at the description thinking that I wouldn't like that kind of movie and why I would waste my time on it. 

But, one day, after being worn down, I watched it. 

And goddammit, I loved it. 

It's one of my favorite movies now. It opened my eyes to a whole new genre of movies that I would have never seen otherwise. As soon as I finished it, I asked for more recommendations which led me to even more movies I never would have seen without my friend.

Inglorious Basterds. Inception. V for Vendetta. The Godfather. 

I couldn't see these movies in theaters, but I'm jealous of those who did. To see that Quentin Tarantino movie on the big screen would be a dream. 

There's nothing like movies and theres nothing like the cinema. It gives me memories and connects me with people. Helps us find common ground. My sister and I don't always get along, but after a Marvel movie, you'd think we were best friends. 

It gives me something to hold onto, an experience of my own. I can always remember what I was feeling during certain parts when I rewatch something. It's like deja vu. 

How some people can say they don't like going to the movies is beyond me. Sitting in a comfortable chair in a dark room with popcorn and drinks and snacks, staring at a giant screen where people know it's rude to make any sort of noise or distraction?

Sounds like heaven to me.